Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2010 7:33am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Oh, I think it matters in a big way...otherwise, why even talk about it? Seriously? If all we did was to say "I like this" and it had NO impact on you, and you said "I like that" and vice versa, it really wouldn't be very interesting...

I've said many, many times that the human condition does in fact NOT work in that fashion...as much as it will irritate any number of folks, there ARE rules for art, music etc. It is NOT all whim and fancy.

That's why there are museums, awards, etc., etc. Now, we may find that at certain times certain genres don't catch our fancy, BUT it is NOT all up for grabs as the Post Modernists suggest...it is all NOT just narrative.

At least we better all hope it is not.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Mar 5, 2010 7:47am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Don't get me started on museums and awards. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a joke, and I didn't exactly need the GD to win a Grammy (in 1997!) to know how I felt about them.

But please tell me dear Mr. Tell... What exactly are the "rules for art"? I'm dying to know. And I can't believe I've made it this far in life without someone letting me in on such important information.

But if you need an explanation as to why I can appreciate 80's and 90's GD, then I'll tell you: The Dead were the only band that did what they did. Even in the 90's there still wasn't any other band like them. If I could have gone back to '68 or '71 or '73 to see one of those shows then I damn well would have. But I knew from the very first show that I saw (in 1990) that Jerry could still pull a rabbit out of a hat every once in a while. That's why I stayed with it. Maybe if I'd actually seen shows in the 70's I'd have felt differently about. Who knows?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2010 11:10am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Sorry--shudda said it's why we have "good museums!" Cultural trivia like the R&R HofF are just that..."bad museums" but therein lays (lies?!) the proof, right? You KNEW that...so, you judged accordingly. You don't scoff at the Louvre, right?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Mar 5, 2010 9:31am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: tools of the rules

http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=270514

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2010 10:39am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: tools of the rules

Thank you.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2010 11:04am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Well, I would argue you do know them already...sure they are not simple, and sure they beg definition, BUT the amazing thing is just look around you at "great art" that has stood the test of time...there is a reason my first grade art sculpture isn't on display somewhere, right? I know that sounds silly, but think about it...

Some of the best examples of cross cultural consistency have to do with various cultures ranking sounds and visual displays in very similar fashions...it seems we DO share fundamental notions of what is "good" and what is "not so good"...think of how many times someone said "you have to HEAR this!" and you discovered an entire music genre that after getting past "recently induced/indoctrinated cultural artefact" you did indeed come to appreciate it...

MS can take it from here--I am all worn out.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 5, 2010 9:27am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

There may as you say, be rules – but are they rules that can be applied across the board in all circumstances allowing us to make these objective judgements? Is it necessary to know what the 'rules' are to have an appreciation of the art? Take a look at this clip of Derek Bailey. What rules is he following?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn_m8PzSWV0

No matter how hard I try to listen to Bailey I just don’t ‘get it’. In fact, I have no clue what ‘it’ actually is. My jazz guitar playing friend practically worshipped Derek Bailey, thought he was one of the finest practitioners of the six-string guitar who ever picked up the instrument. Unlike me, he did get it. What to me appears to be almost random string-strangling was, so I was told, a highly constructed piece of music requiring real talent to perform. Subjectively, I think it verges on being a noise and I don’t really like it. Objectively? I don’t have the tools to judge, but I think that even if I did know the rules I still wouldn’t like it that much.

So, what are the rules that will allow a fair-minded, unbiased listener to conclude that, say, a 68 St Stephen is to be preferred to a 73 Eyes of the World? Can’t be formulated in my belief. Objectivity, especially in terms of art, will only take you so far. Objectively, you could probably tie most people down to an admission that Phil Lesh is a better bass player than Sid Vicious ever was in terms both of technical ability and inventiveness, but Lesh would have out and out sucked in the Sex Pistols.

Whim and fancy just aren’t going to go away.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jglynn1.2 Date: Mar 5, 2010 9:32am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Is that a cover of the Dead tuning?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 5, 2010 9:56am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

hah! The thing with those Bailey types is that they sound like that all the time - at least the Dead eventually swung into Wharf Rat or something.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2010 10:39am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

I would refer back to the great debate on photo art...in the end, save for JOTS, I think we all agreed that there are "good" photos and "not so good" photos...

All I am saying is, and just as vaguely, "we" (humankind) do in fact share many of the same notions of beauty...this HAS been established across many cultures from a visual perspective eg (ie, many tribes with no known contact rank birds as "unattractive to attractive" in a scale so similar to your Brit Bird Watching Geeks it'd make your head spin...

This is not to say I can define it for various artforms, and I do believe whim and fancy enter into as well...but, I will go to my grave convinced it is not ALL whim and fancy, and I know that you work hard at what you do, knowing it to be true at some level, or some hack like me could outsell you in your biz...but that only happens every once in a while, right?

I will say, "...though I can't define it, I know it when I see it" and I think the human condition is what gives each and everyone of us the ability to do this in any number of artistic endeavors...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 5, 2010 11:29am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Just been looking at your earlier exchange with midnight, which, for whatever reason, I had entirely missed. Sometimes the exchanges in this forum make my brain throb - and that is entirely a good thing.

So, quick question: is the possibility of there being an objective assessment of an artform not dependent on a shared subjectivity? i.e. we agree based on a pooling of our individual responses that thing A has worth while thing B does not?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Mar 5, 2010 12:24pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Okay then. Which one of you is "thing A"?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2010 12:29pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

That's "thang" (you have to recall the scene from Serpico [great flick I always thought] to get it).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2010 12:08pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Why you little smarty pants--I think that gets at the REAL question: the degree to which this was codified long ago as hunter gatherers, OR the degree to which particular ways in which our minds work were selected "for" (as in language).

I am surprised no one called me on the "culture" (= environment) vs "genes" (heredity) biz already...